SAMPAT KHIMRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 142 , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5133/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 January 2025AY 2011-2012Bench: SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity and genuineness of the payments made for labour charges, and non-response from the parties to a notice u/s 133(6) was not sufficient ground for addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading of gold ornaments, filed its return. During scrutiny, the AO made additions on account of labour charges paid to certain parties. The assessee contested this, providing documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of labour charges is justified when the assessee has provided documentary evidence and the recipient parties did not respond to notice u/s 133(6).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A/R
Hearing: 21/01/2025Pronounced: 23/01/2025

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 27/09/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2011-12.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,52,034/- on account of labor charges paid to:- i) M/s. Avani Jewellers Rs.3,27,897/- ii) Shri Jayesh Jagga Rs.1,84,347/- iii) Shri Rajesh M. Dhanak Rs.92,069/- Total Rs.4,52,034/-

3.

Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and relevant documentary evidence duly considered in the light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules, 1963. 2 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee in engaged in manufacturing and trading of gold ornaments and gold bars. It electronically filed its return of income on 30/09/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 25,91,034/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued an served upon the assessee. 5. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the following persons:-

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →